Validity of Oriental Orders

[AJV]

Now it seems as many Anglikans as can become Catolic priests - just fine. So why make a statement previously about someone elses church?

Because, as I said, the Ethiopian Orthodox priests and deacons were coming into our Church. I know I may have confused things a bit by throwing in the Anglicans so let me try and clear it up:

Ethiopians want to be received into our Church
Query is sent to Rome by the “Prefect Apostolic” - should these priests be reordained or not?
Situation- they are ordained by laying on of hands with the words “Receive the Holy Spirit” and deacons only by placing a cross.
In Rome the documents are prepared including a certain “votum”. Later a decision is given

Now 100 years later…
The question of Anglican Orders comes up
The Anglicans use the formula "Receive the Holy Spirit, etc "to ordain their priests and bishops.
Most Romans declare this is not sufficient.
Anglcians say “this is double standards” . You said it was sufficient for the Ethiopians. The votum is produced in the form of a decision that says “Receive the Holy Spirit” is sufficient.

Now as to other Churches…
We do not make the judgement of sufficiently and insufficnetly ordained so that we can go around telling people “you don’t have priests or deacons”. It is, as I said only formulated when people are received into our Church. But when the conditions that rendered that descision are widespread, yes, it does then become almost like a judgement on the Orders…but not so that we can rub it in.
For example, I’m think a lot of Orthodox (ignoring the variations and somewhat-ignoring ‘economy’) when the Catholics are received, re-chrismate at least? Now that is a pronouncement, as it were, that you don’t recognise our sacrament. Now I doubt you walk about the street with banners saying to every Catholic you meet “Graceless heretic. Your Chrismation is invalid. Hahahaha”. But nonetheless, not recognizing it becomes a judgment on the wider Church when similar conditions prevail. Most likely other Catholics will also be received in the same way by that bishop when they enter your Church. I think the difference is even more accentuated when you use scholastic theology.

 

[RevDrNorth]

So, my question is, does the Roman Catholic Church recognize the validity of Holy Orders in the Oriental Orthodox Churches? I’m guessing it does, because we have Coptic, Ethiopian, and Indian (etc) Catholic Churches, but I wanted to make sure.

While I’m on it, which breakaway Catholic groups have valid holy orders (Old Catholic, Polish National, etc)?

Actually, Fr. Pacwa (EWTN) is talking abou this subject EO). Yes they do recognize the Eastern Orthodox Churches as having apostolic succession and valid sacraments. Note this is not the same as doctrinal agreement.

Yes, according to Rome, the Polish National Catholic Church also has valid orders and sacraments as do the Old Catholics (Utrecht Union). In fact, Polish National Catholic Church members can receive the Holy Eucharist (according to Canon law) in Roman Catholic Churches (with some stipulations such as can’t be ex RCC trying to avoid RCC sanctions).

Also, some Anglican orders are valid. What throws a monkey wrench in the whole thing occurred after Leo’s death. The Anglican Communion entered into communion in the 20th century (1930’s??) with the Old Catholic Church (Utrecht Union) which eventually included the Polish National Catholic Church (who later left the union over the liberalization in the Episc Church and Old Catholic Church). After the intercommunion, Old Catholic Bishops began particpating in consecrations of Anglican Bishops AND therefore transferred legitimate Old Catholic succession to those Bishops and therefore those they ordained and whose consecrations they particpated in. As I recall, the Archbishop of Canterbury currently has Old Catholic orders.

There are also “Continuing Anglican” groups who trace their apostolic succession back to Anglican Bishop Albert Chambers. Bishop Chambers had succession from the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC). He therefore transmitted valid succession (from the Catholic point of view) to those Bishops he consecrated and clergy ordained by those Bishops have valid orders.

Those orders were transferred to some *Continuing Anglican *groups and some Anglican Communion Bishops and clergy. In fact, the PIC (Philippine Independent Catholic Church) not only ended up with Episcopal succession but also valid succession when the PNCC consecrated their Bishops (PICC were members of Utrecht for a while). They and Bishop Chambers consecrated the Bishops of the original Continuing Anglican groups. Meaning that there are entire “Continuing Anglican” groups who are very orthodox and have what the RCC would consider valid orders. There are also a fair number of Anglican Communion Bishops and clergy with the same.

Frankly, the whole area is quite complicated.

Canon law (844) allows Roman Catholics to receive sacraments from clergy with valid orders (eg Eastern Orthodox, Polish National Catholic Church, some Continuing Anglican groups) in cases of emergency. In a practical sense, other than isolation or war a Catholic (union with Rome) will always be able to find a Priest in union with Rome. This article of Canon law is also NOT an invitation to Catholics to attend churches with valid orders as Catholics should always be seeking churches who are in union with Rome.

 

[AJV]

I think the difference is even more accentuated when you use scholastic theology.

i meant when one uses scholastic theology which is based on fixed matter and form and the Augustinian theory of Orders.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Also, some Anglican orders are valid. What throws a monkey wrench in the whole thing occurred after Leo’s death. The Anglican Communion entered into communion in the 20th century (1930’s??) with the Old Catholic Church (Utrecht Union) which eventually included the Polish National Catholic Church (who later left the union over the liberalization in the Episc Church and Old Catholic Church). After the intercommunion, Old Catholic Bishops began particpating in consecrations of Anglican Bishops AND therefore transferred legitimate Old Catholic succession to those Bishops and therefore those they ordained and whose consecrations they particpated in. As I recall, the Archbishop of Canterbury currently has Old Catholic orders.

This is something that we should start a new thread on… Really it demands qualification that some may be valid… We do well not to assume Rome would view these Anglican orders as valid just because bishops with possible valid orders participated.

Questions of form and intent then come into play. It has been ruled in a Roman document, that simply having a possibly valid bishop approach the ordinand in a line and offer “receive the Holy Spirit” as has happened, would NOT be considered a reliable way to transmit HO.

The blue screen of death came like a thief in the night to wipe out my memory… so I will have to go a huntin’ for the source.

As a friend of mine aptly stated “A Polish Pat in the Pedigree does not a valid priest garuntee”

 

[jj2011]

This is something that we should start a new thread on… Really it demands qualification that some may be valid… We do well not to assume Rome would view these Anglican orders as valid just because bishops with possible valid orders participated.

Questions of form and intent then come into play. It has been ruled in a Roman document, that simply having a possibly valid bishop approach the ordinand in a line and offer “receive the Holy Spirit” as has happened, would NOT be considered a reliable way to transmit HO.

The blue screen of death came like a thief in the night to wipe out my memory… so I will have to go a huntin’ for the source.

As a friend of mine aptly stated “A Polish Pat in the Pedigree does not a valid priest garuntee”

I wouldn’t mind having the reference myself, Simple, but Apostolicae Curae determined that accipe Spiritum Sanctum is insufficient to signify the grace and power of the sacrament.

Of course Old Catholics and Ultrajectines can transmit valid orders, but there has to be a valid form. It could be the Roman form, the Byzantine, or the Coptic, but there still has to be one.

Form, form, form-- that is what principally gives the meaning to the sacramental sign.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I wouldn’t mind having the reference myself, Simple, but Apostolicae Curae determined that accipe Spiritum Sanctum is insufficient to signify the grace and power of the sacrament.

Of course Old Catholics and Ultrajectines can transmit valid orders, but there has to be a valid form. It could be the Roman form, the Byzantine, or the Coptic, but there still has to be one.

Form, form, form-- that is what principally gives the meaning to the sacramental sign.

I am still looking for the reference, but as I recall, there was a ruling stating that amidst the BCP ritual usage for installation of a bishop, the presense of an Ultrajectine bishop who stepped forward and offered Apostolicae Curae determined that accipe Spiritum Sanctum was not considered to be sufficient.

 

[RevDrNorth]

I am still looking for the reference, but as I recall, there was a ruling stating that amidst the BCP ritual usage for installation of a bishop, the presense of an Ultrajectine bishop who stepped forward and offered Apostolicae Curae determined that accipe Spiritum Sanctum was not considered to be sufficient.

As I recall reading, the issue with the Prayer Book was solved within 100 years of the Edwardian Ordinal. The problem was that Leo considered it defective in form and intent and therefore all orders from that point on were defective. It was I think only the intent issue that had validity since the Form issue was also present in several liturgies of the early Catholic Church. But it was the alleged specific intent in the Edwardian ordinal to exclude that was at issue.

Leo XIII’s issue (thought out in the 1800’s and looking back to Parker)w ith defective orders made sense until the 1930’s when the Anglican Communion entered communion with the Old Catholics (Utrecht) and eventually the PNCC who began particpating in the consecrations. In the case of Chambers and PICC this is why there are some continuing Anglican groups with valid orders and intent to be “Catholic”. As even Dr. Tighe acknowledges.

Remember that even from the Roman Catholic point of view you have to seperate valid orders from theology that it is correct. Rome sees the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht as having valid orders but considers their theology well off base. PNCC closer but still not compelete obviously. Both with valid orders (PNCC by Canon law can even receive communion in RCC).

Now, when we deal with the Orthodox different story. They consider that as this article notes, Roman Catholics, Anglicans are free to call their clergy “Bishops”, “Priests” and so on but the Catholic Church & the Anglican church do not have valid orders period. Only the Orthodox do. I am not sure how they feel about “Eastern Catholic” but since the EC are not in communion with the EO, this author sees them as invalid as well.

roca.org/OA/88/88n.htm

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Now, when we deal with the Orthodox different story. They consider that as this article notes, Roman Catholics, Anglicans are free to call their clergy “Bishops”, “Priests” and so on but the Catholic Church & the Anglican church do not have valid orders period. Only the Orthodox do. I am not sure how they feel about “Eastern Catholic” but since the EC are not in communion with the EO, this author sees them as invalid as well.

roca.org/OA/88/88n.htm

As much as I respect Dr. Tighe - and truly I do - on this matter all he can offer is speculation.

To speak of Continuing Anglicans as definately having acknowledged valid orders is problematic - no examination, to my knowledge has been made.

On the issue of Orthodox recognition or Catholic orders… Well that right there seems to be the $64,000 question. Some Catholic priests who have 'doxed have been recieved via vesting, others chrismation, others through ordination, and still others, who contracted marriage after their roman ordination, were forbidden from the priesthood on the grounds that they married after ordination. There is neither consensus on the matter, or someone with the final authority to speak to that issue.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Of course there are problems with legality of priesthood (законность рукоположения) in So-called Kyivan patrchiate church and also among the old believers (белокриницкие и новозыбковцы) who do not agree among themselves as to valid ordination. But canonical Orthodox church does not take a position until they wish to return to Orthodoxy. Then Bishop will make arrangements. Church does not judge others so that Orthodox people do not say to Kyivan patriarchate or Old Believer friends - you church is not legal, your church has insufficient ordinated priests and bishops. This is no concern of Orthodox laymen or Orthodox church. I have now read about Catolic statments about anglikan church and think that this is quite a pointless statement in past. Now it seems as many Anglikans as can become Catolic priests - just fine. So why make a statement previously about someone elses church?

Anglican priests who become Catholic priests do so after ordination. I am familiar with only one ordination done sub-conditione.

This is not a one-way street either, Volodymyr - there has been much speculation on the part of various Orthodox parties as to whether or not Catholic orders were valid. I recall an instance of a party of French Benedictines who went to Mt. Athos and were baptized and then ordained. Conversely, a group of Greek Catholics that converted to Orthodoxy here in the US simply signed an agreement with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[RevDrNorth]

As much as I respect Dr. Tighe - and truly I do - on this matter all he can offer is speculation.

To speak of Continuing Anglicans as definately having acknowledged valid orders is problematic - no examination, to my knowledge has been made.

On the issue of Orthodox recognition or Catholic orders… Well that right there seems to be the $64,000 question. Some Catholic priests who have 'doxed have been recieved via vesting, others chrismation, others through ordination, and still others, who contracted marriage after their roman ordination, were forbidden from the priesthood on the grounds that they married after ordination. There is neither consensus on the matter, or someone with the final authority to speak to that issue.

Do the Orthodox regard Eastern Catholic (the U word) orders as invalid the way they do Roman Catholic orders since both are out of communion with the Orthodox Church?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Do the Orthodox regard Eastern Catholic (the U word) orders as invalid the way they do Roman Catholic orders since both are out of communion with the Orthodox Church?

You would have to ask each bishop individually - there is no “singular policy” in this matter.

Some Catholic priests who have 'doxed have been recieved via vesting, others chrismation, others through ordination, and still others, who contracted marriage after their roman ordination, were forbidden from the priesthood on the grounds that they married after ordination. There is neither consensus on the matter, or someone with the final authority to speak to that issue.